World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Plant Science and Agronomy

D-Index
54
Citations
14760
World Ranking
1664
National Ranking
442

Brent E. Ewers publication distribution in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brent E. Ewers sits on this spectrum.

36–40 publications: 2 scientists 41–45 publications: 7 scientists 46–50 publications: 40 scientists 51–55 publications: 58 scientists 56–60 publications: 60 scientists 61–65 publications: 107 scientists 66–70 publications: 130 scientists 71–75 publications: 153 scientists 76–80 publications: 191 scientists 81–85 publications: 199 scientists 86–90 publications: 206 scientists 91–95 publications: 218 scientists 96–100 publications: 226 scientists 101–105 publications: 227 scientists 106–110 publications: 247 scientists 111–115 publications: 255 scientists 116–120 publications: 253 scientists 121–125 publications: 233 scientists 126–130 publications: 219 scientists 131–135 publications: 201 scientists 136–140 publications: 194 scientists 141–145 publications: 176 scientists 146–150 publications: 157 scientists 151–155 publications: 147 scientists 156–160 publications: 151 scientists 161–165 publications: 159 scientists 166–170 publications: 137 scientists 171–175 publications: 128 scientists 176–180 publications: 126 scientists 181–185 publications: 98 scientists 186–190 publications: 114 scientists 191–195 publications: 100 scientists 196–200 publications: 90 scientists 201–205 publications: 71 scientists 206–210 publications: 98 scientists 211–215 publications: 70 scientists 216–220 publications: 86 scientists 221–225 publications: 61 scientists 226–230 publications: 58 scientists 231–235 publications: 53 scientists 236–240 publications: 64 scientists 241–245 publications: 39 scientists 246–250 publications: 46 scientists 251–255 publications: 51 scientists 256–260 publications: 36 scientists 261–265 publications: 44 scientists 266–270 publications: 35 scientists 271–275 publications: 30 scientists 276–280 publications: 33 scientists 281–285 publications: 35 scientists 286–290 publications: 36 scientists 291–295 publications: 26 scientists 296–300 publications: 26 scientists 301–305 publications: 31 scientists 306–310 publications: 30 scientists 311–315 publications: 21 scientists 316–320 publications: 29 scientists 321–325 publications: 14 scientists 326–330 publications: 15 scientists 331–335 publications: 15 scientists 336–340 publications: 17 scientists 341–345 publications: 15 scientists 346–350 publications: 12 scientists 351–355 publications: 17 scientists 356–360 publications: 18 scientists 361–365 publications: 12 scientists 366–370 publications: 11 scientists 371–375 publications: 6 scientists 376–380 publications: 6 scientists 381–385 publications: 11 scientists 386–390 publications: 9 scientists 391–395 publications: 10 scientists 396–400 publications: 8 scientists 401–405 publications: 4 scientists 406–410 publications: 9 scientists 411–415 publications: 11 scientists 416–420 publications: 4 scientists 421–425 publications: 7 scientists 426–430 publications: 4 scientists 431–435 publications: 3 scientists 436–440 publications: 5 scientists 441–445 publications: 8 scientists 446–450 publications: 6 scientists 451–455 publications: 7 scientists 456–460 publications: 5 scientists 461–465 publications: 6 scientists 466 publications: 2 scientists 467+ publications: 99 scientists
36 publications 467+

This scientist: 179 publications — 71st percentile

71% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more.

Brent E. Ewers D-index placement in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brent E. Ewers sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 200 scientists 31 D-Index: 236 scientists 32 D-Index: 253 scientists 33 D-Index: 283 scientists 34 D-Index: 288 scientists 35 D-Index: 240 scientists 36 D-Index: 246 scientists 37 D-Index: 243 scientists 38 D-Index: 247 scientists 39 D-Index: 229 scientists 40 D-Index: 232 scientists 41 D-Index: 230 scientists 42 D-Index: 228 scientists 43 D-Index: 219 scientists 44 D-Index: 193 scientists 45 D-Index: 164 scientists 46 D-Index: 158 scientists 47 D-Index: 143 scientists 48 D-Index: 131 scientists 49 D-Index: 127 scientists 50 D-Index: 122 scientists 51 D-Index: 122 scientists 52 D-Index: 110 scientists 53 D-Index: 102 scientists 54 D-Index: 98 scientists 55 D-Index: 79 scientists 56 D-Index: 85 scientists 57 D-Index: 88 scientists 58 D-Index: 91 scientists 59 D-Index: 62 scientists 60 D-Index: 61 scientists 61 D-Index: 59 scientists 62 D-Index: 54 scientists 63 D-Index: 61 scientists 64 D-Index: 59 scientists 65 D-Index: 58 scientists 66 D-Index: 41 scientists 67 D-Index: 49 scientists 68 D-Index: 39 scientists 69 D-Index: 32 scientists 70 D-Index: 40 scientists 71 D-Index: 47 scientists 72 D-Index: 38 scientists 73 D-Index: 28 scientists 74 D-Index: 29 scientists 75 D-Index: 28 scientists 76 D-Index: 22 scientists 77 D-Index: 21 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 26 scientists 80 D-Index: 19 scientists 81 D-Index: 16 scientists 82 D-Index: 12 scientists 83 D-Index: 16 scientists 84 D-Index: 14 scientists 85 D-Index: 11 scientists 86 D-Index: 17 scientists 87 D-Index: 13 scientists 88 D-Index: 10 scientists 89 D-Index: 12 scientists 90 D-Index: 18 scientists 91 D-Index: 16 scientists 92 D-Index: 16 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 12 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 9 scientists 97 D-Index: 9 scientists 98 D-Index: 11 scientists 99 D-Index: 12 scientists 100 D-Index: 5 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 4 scientists 103 D-Index: 11 scientists 104 D-Index: 5 scientists 105 D-Index: 9 scientists 106 D-Index: 7 scientists 107 D-Index: 4 scientists 108 D-Index: 8 scientists 109+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 109+

This scientist: 54 D-Index — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more.

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

His main research concerns Botany, Stomatal conductance, Transpiration, Vapour Pressure Deficit and Canopy. His research in Botany is mostly focused on Leaf area index. In his study, Human fertilization, Picea abies and Interception is inextricably linked to Irrigation, which falls within the broad field of Leaf area index.

His work in Stomatal conductance tackles topics such as Atmospheric sciences which are related to areas like Canopy conductance. His study in Transpiration is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing from both Soil water, Evapotranspiration, Xylem and Water content. His work in Vapour Pressure Deficit addresses subjects such as Horticulture, which are connected to disciplines such as Stand development, Black spruce and Basal area.

His most cited work include:

  • Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO 2 -enriched atmosphere (890 citations)
  • Survey and synthesis of intra‐ and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit (803 citations)
  • Shrub encroachment in North American grasslands: shifts in growth form dominance rapidly alters control of ecosystem carbon inputs (361 citations)

What are the main themes of his work throughout his whole career to date?

Brent E. Ewers focuses on Transpiration, Atmospheric sciences, Ecology, Stomatal conductance and Canopy. Brent E. Ewers studies Transpiration, namely Vapour Pressure Deficit. Brent E. Ewers interconnects Tree canopy and Spatial variability in the investigation of issues within Atmospheric sciences.

His work carried out in the field of Stomatal conductance brings together such families of science as Leaf area index and Agronomy. The Canopy study combines topics in areas such as Bayesian probability, Markov chain Monte Carlo and Canopy conductance. His biological study spans a wide range of topics, including Circadian clock and Horticulture.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Transpiration (29.84%)
  • Atmospheric sciences (28.80%)
  • Ecology (23.04%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2015-2021)?

  • Ecosystem (17.28%)
  • Atmospheric sciences (28.80%)
  • Ecology (23.04%)

In recent papers he was focusing on the following fields of study:

His scientific interests lie mostly in Ecosystem, Atmospheric sciences, Ecology, Hydrology and Hydrology. His studies in Atmospheric sciences integrate themes in fields like Canopy, Water content and Chlorophyll a. Brent E. Ewers has researched Canopy in several fields, including Precipitation and Stomatal conductance.

His study ties his expertise on Agronomy together with the subject of Stomatal conductance. His study in the field of Disturbance and Adaptation is also linked to topics like Tree and Boechera stricta. His research in Hydrology intersects with topics in Montane ecology and Vapour Pressure Deficit, Transpiration.

Between 2015 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • A multi-species synthesis of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality (351 citations)
  • The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data (67 citations)
  • When a tree dies in the forest: Scaling climate-driven tree mortality to ecosystem water and carbon fluxes (49 citations)

In his most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Ecology
  • Ecosystem
  • Botany

Ecosystem, Ecology, Circadian clock, Botany and Eddy covariance are his primary areas of study. His Ecosystem research incorporates elements of Aquatic ecosystem, Energy balance and Environmental resource management. When carried out as part of a general Ecology research project, his work on Disturbance and Adaptation is frequently linked to work in Tree and Boechera stricta, therefore connecting diverse disciplines of study.

Many of his research projects under Botany are closely connected to Brassica rapa with Brassica rapa, tying the diverse disciplines of science together. Stomatal conductance and Ecotype are frequently intertwined in his study. His studies deal with areas such as Climatology, Biosphere, Data collection and Time series as well as Eddy covariance.

Best Publications

  • The FLUXNET2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline for eddy covariance data

    Gilberto Pastorello;Carlo Trotta;Eleonora Canfora;Housen Chu

  • Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO 2 -enriched atmosphere

    Ram Oren;David S Ellsworth;David S Ellsworth;Kurt H Johnsen;Nathan C. Phillips

  • Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit

    R. Oren;J. S. Sperry;G. G. Katul;D. E. Pataki

  • A multi-species synthesis of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality

    Henry D. Adams;Melanie J.B. Zeppel;Melanie J.B. Zeppel;William R.L. Anderegg;Henrik Hartmann

  • Shrub encroachment in North American grasslands: shifts in growth form dominance rapidly alters control of ecosystem carbon inputs

    Alan K. Knapp;John M. Briggs;Scott L. Collins;Steven R. Archer

  • Influence of soil porosity on water use in Pinus taeda

    U G Hacke;John S Sperry;Brent E Ewers;D S Ellsworth

  • Analyses of assumptions and errors in the calculation of stomatal conductance from sap flux measurements.

    Brent E. Ewers;Ram Oren

  • Sap-flux-scaled transpiration responses to light, vapor pressure deficit, and leaf area reduction in a flooded Taxodium distichum forest.

    R. Oren;N. Phillips;B. E. Ewers;D. E. Pataki

  • Influence of nutrient versus water supply on hydraulic architecture and water balance in Pinus taeda

    B. E. Ewers;R. Oren;J. S. Sperry

  • Cascading impacts of bark beetle‐caused tree mortality on coupled biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes

    Steven L. Edburg;Jeffrey A. Hicke;Paul D. Brooks;Elise G. Pendall

  • Effects of stand age and tree species on canopy transpiration and average stomatal conductance of boreal forests

    B. E. Ewers;B. E. Ewers;S. T. Gower;B. Bond-Lamberty;C. K. Wang

  • Scaling xylem sap flux and soil water balance and calculating variance: a method for partitioning water flux in forests

    Ram Oren;Nathan Phillips;Gabriel Katul;Brent E. Ewers

  • Analyses of Assumptions and Erros in the Calculation of Stomatal Conductance from Sap Flux Measurements

    Brent E. Ewers;Ram Oren

  • Sensitivity of mean canopy stomatal conductance to vapor pressure deficit in a flooded Taxodium distichum L. forest: hydraulic and non-hydraulic effects

    R. Oren;J. S. Sperry;B. E. Ewers;D. E. Pataki

  • Sap flux–upscaled canopy transpiration, stomatal conductance, and water use efficiency in an old growth forest in the Great Lakes region of the United States

    Jianwu Tang;Paul V. Bolstad;Brent E. Ewers;Ankur R. Desai

  • Tree species effects on stand transpiration in northern Wisconsin

    B. E. Ewers;D. S. Mackay;S. T. Gower;D. E. Ahl

  • WATER BALANCE DELINEATES THE SOIL LAYER IN WHICH MOISTURE AFFECTS CANOPY CONDUCTANCE

    Ram Oren;Brent E. Ewers;Philip Todd;Nathan Phillips

  • Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: the SAPFLUXNET database

    Rafael Poyatos;Víctor Granda;Víctor Flo;Mark A. Adams;Mark A. Adams

  • Mean canopy stomatal conductance responses to water and nutrient availabilities in Picea abies and Pinus taeda.

    Brent E. Ewers;Brent E. Ewers;Ram Oren;Nathan Phillips;Nathan Phillips;Monika Strömgren

  • The temperature responses of soil respiration in deserts: a seven desert synthesis

    Jessica M Cable;Jessica M Cable;Kiona Ogle;Richard W Lucas;Travis E Huxman

  • Interannual consistency in canopy stomatal conductance control of leaf water potential across seven tree species

    B. E. Ewers;D. S. Mackay;S. Samanta

  • CARRY-OVER EFFECTS OF WATER AND NUTRIENT SUPPLY ON WATER USE OF PINUS TAEDA

    Brent E. Ewers;I Ram Oren;Timothy J. Albaugh;Phillip M. Dougherty

  • Interdependence of chronic hydraulic dysfunction and canopy processes can improve integrated models of tree response to drought

    D. Scott Mackay;David E. Roberts;Brent E. Ewers;John S. Sperry

  • Drought-induced hydraulic limitations constrain leaf gas exchange recovery after precipitation pulses in the C3 woody legume, Prosopis velutina.

    Víctor Resco;Víctor Resco;Brent E. Ewers;Wei Sun;Travis E. Huxman

Frequent Co-Authors

Elise Pendall
Elise Pendall Western Sydney University
Ram Oren
Ram Oren Duke University
Eric L. Kruger
Eric L. Kruger University of Wisconsin–Madison
William J. Massman
William J. Massman US Forest Service
Paul D. Brooks
Paul D. Brooks University of Utah
Stith T. Gower
Stith T. Gower North Carolina State University
Adrian A. Harpold
Adrian A. Harpold University of Nevada Reno
Ankur R. Desai
Ankur R. Desai University of Wisconsin–Madison
Joel A. Biederman
Joel A. Biederman United States Department of Agriculture
David Gochis
David Gochis National Center for Atmospheric Research

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Best Scientists Citing Brent E. Ewers

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles